IF condition for javascript:history.back(-1)

[Acorn]

Hi Acorn,

as posted, below my last description, with maybe some simplehearted ideas about JavaScript coding. Although I think I will follow your or Eggs suggestion (or both in some kind of manner), would be interested about your comment on this idea, what´s possible with some lines of JavaScript.

Kind regards
Erwin

-----------

I neither know if this is possible nor I´m able to write this lines of codes correctly without spending a lot more time to become a little bit more familar with JavaScript.
Therefore let me ask, what do you think about this way.

Kind regards
Erwin

Erwin, it will take a bit of time to check over things but I will get back when I can.

Acorn

[zawadil]

Hi Acorn,

Another approach is a semi-modal one in that each feature Link opens into a new window:
javascript: var f01m = window.open("feature01.htm", "Feature 01 pop-out", "width=960,height=480, left=110, top=110").focus();

it´s interesting too.

I modified the [back button] from "javascript: window.history.back();" to a [close-button] and tried with "javascript: window.close();" works.

Kind regards
Erwin

[Acorn]

Hi Acorn,

Another approach is a semi-modal one in that each feature Link opens into a new window:
javascript: var f01m = window.open("feature01.htm", "Feature 01 pop-out", "width=960,height=480, left=110, top=110").focus();

it´s interesting too.

I modified the [back button] from "javascript: window.history.back();" to a [close-button] and tried with "javascript: window.close();" works.

Kind regards
Erwin

Erwin, thank you for advising.
This would be my preference as it is generally the cleanest and simplest.

Acorn

[Initiostar]

I tried to get my head round this 'challenge' and started with a simple table; may not be accurate, but looks at product families, series and feature groups. The latter is important because it reduces (I think) the complexity.



There are here only three feature groups, (f1,f2,f3 & f4), (f1,f2,& f3) and (f1 & f2) - similar to Egg, one can create feature group pages which can be called from anywhere through a popup that contains a sticky iframe (which then presents the feature group).

The back-button concept could still be applied, but the features group that corresponds to the family/series/product would always be available from the top menu bar (which would be sticky).



In this example the placeholder height is shorter than the incoming features page and the visitor can simply scroll up and down to view the applicable features without the leaving the page being viewed.

Different approach maybe? Common Product Features.xar

[Egg Bramhill]

Yes, that's a great method too Gary. It's a fun challenge and interesting how it can be approached by individuals.

[zawadil]

Hi Initiostar,
thank you for this idea, which gives me another option to simplify the design, not even with less windows/ layers but also with the opporunity to use a format for the Feature-Window, which fits for 960px and 480px as well.
Maybe I will combine it with Ancor´s semi-modal approach
Kind regards
Erwin

[Acorn]

Erwin, I think the need for coding a back() has greatly receded with the range of examples you now have.
Keeping code to a minimum is probably for the best.

I do like the Sticky pop-up of all relevant Features, but it might become too tall and require a vertical scrollbar.
You may be able to get round this by adding Sticky buttons to scroll to the top of each Feature Placeholder.

The advantage of the semi-modal window is it can be moved around and out of the way or closed when not needed.
It gives a bit more control to the viewer.

Do come back with further questions and I think we would like to see the finished design/site sometime.

Acorn

[zawadil]

I thank for all contributions and will post the final URL after finishing.
Kind regards
Erwin

[zawadil]

Hi Acorn,

I played around with the various suggestions we already discussed. By the end I was not really happy as every version has some disadvantages as well. Your last suggestion with independet windows was my favorite but it gave me less controll of the positioning specially im a combined 960/480px (desktop/mobile) version. Therefor I started to play around using iframes with a single placeholder. Generally this works great as long as I just have a 960px version > see my sample file "iframe_ph2.xar". From this point I have just added a 480px version (see "iframe_ph2b.xar" and strange things happens.

1) the iframe size changes in both version, which means, 960px alone (iframe_ph2.xar), just has the vertical scroll bar, whereas the combined 960/480px version (iframe_ph2b.xar) shows a horizontal scroll bar too and I cannot find any reason for this.
2) On the top of the popup I do have the links to jump directly to a specific iframe (feature) and additionally a <forward> and <back> navigation within the iframes. With the 960px only version (iframe_ph2.xar) both works fine. With the combined 960/480px version (iframe_ph2b.xar), the links on the top of the popup stopped working, although the <forward> and <back> navigation within the iframe is still working.

This is very strange, as described, I have changed nothing. I finished the 960px version (iframe_ph2.xar) and everything is fine. I used the option in Xara to add the 480px format to this few pages. The program generated all the pages and I just corrected some text blocks to fit, nothing more.

The effect is reversibel, which means if you take the combined 960/480px version (iframe_ph2b.xar) and delete the 480px format, everything becomes fine again,

I´m going round circles and I hope you can tell me, if it´s a buck of a feature ;.) and maybe you know a workaround too.

Kind regad
Erwin

[Acorn]

Edwin, you have to change your Placeholder code for width to 100%; I would do the samee for height.
The Yellow Placeholder then defines the size of the IFRAME.

In Main you make the Yellow Placeholder wider.
In Main, you then make the page widths wider to ensure the code knows to switch to the right Placeholder.

I would include Scale to Fit Width at 1280px.

Finally the start/Relaibility/Connectivity links in the variant are failing as the Placeholder name needs to be different.

Acorn